Ben Holmes misrepresented Sandy McCroskey over on the nuthouse

Bud

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 10:59:50 PM9/30/12

to

As is becoming increasingly common, when Ben Holmes is getting trounced
in a discussion he has taken to misdirection and misrepresentation rather
than address the issues at hand. The latest example is this Ben posted
over at alt.conspiracy.jfk...

Sandy said...

This has been explained to you ad nauseam. Every detail that comes out
of Lane's mouth could be, by itself, true

Ben inserted...

You will be completely unable to document *ANYONE* else saying this.
It is indeed, the first admission by any LNT'er that Mark Lane was
telling the truth.

But notice that Ben inserted before Sandy made it clear that he was only
speaking hypothetically that Lane was telling the truth, and mentioned as
an aside that this was "far from the case". Yet Ben decided to address a
portion of what he Sandy said out of context as if it were Sandy`s
*position* that Lane was telling the truth. Ben has certainly learned a
trick or two from his mentor Lane. Below is the part where Sandy makes his
position clear, but Ben inserted his comments as if this part had never
been said.

Sandy`s completed thought that Ben ignored...

(though this is far from the
case, of course, but for the sake of argument...) and the conclusion he
draws, and attempts to make seem plausible, through the strategic
omission of other facts, could be (and in fact is) a deliberate
deception. Just as the Devil is said to quote scripture for his own
purposes.

Mark Ulrik

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 1:50:01 PM10/1/12

to

I'm afraid it's typical of Ben to feign illiteracy when it suits him.

Reminds me of a discussion we once had over at the Nuthouse about
Chaney's location (abreast of the limo, according to Ben) in the
Altgens photo. In an attempt to find support for his (extremely weak)
theory, he turned to the WFAA interview (available on Youtube) in
which Chaney describes having first looked to his left (i.e. towards
fellow officers Hargis & Martin) and then back, just in time to see
the president's head explode. Ben kept insisting that "back" could
ONLY be interpreted as "the opposite of ahead" when it was obvious to
everyone else that the intended meaning was "in the direction he was
previously looking," (i.e. more or less ahead).

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 3:44:16 PM10/1/12

to

Top Comment: I notice that you didn't dare actually *POST* the post so
that people could make up their own mind.

Why is that, "Bud?"

In article <33fe1b02-241f-4a47...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...

>
> As is becoming increasingly common, when Ben Holmes is getting trounced
>in a discussion he has taken to misdirection and misrepresentation rather
>than address the issues at hand.

Says the person who *STILL* refuses to name the topic...

>The latest example is this Ben posted
>over at alt.conspiracy.jfk...

Yep... I often post there... you see, I can't be censored over there. But
it seems that you're willing to censor my post here, aren't you?

> Sandy said...
>
> This has been explained to you ad nauseam. Every detail that comes out
> of Lane's mouth could be, by itself, true
>
> Ben inserted...
>
>You will be completely unable to document *ANYONE* else saying this.
>It is indeed, the first admission by any LNT'er that Mark Lane was
>telling the truth.
>
> But notice that

What people should notice is that you've snipped the post, so that people
cannot see the context.

I defy *YOU* to give the complete post...

>Ben inserted before Sandy made it clear that he was only
>speaking hypothetically

Was Sandy speaking "hypothetically" that this has been explained to me "ad
nauseam?"

Can you *QUOTE* an example?

Dare you try?

This is the basic underlying problem with LNT'ers... ad hominem and
smearing, along with running away from citation and evidence is all you
have left.

Many, if not most LNT'ers no longer post in open forums for quite obvious
reasons. (reasons that cannot be stated here - censorship, you know...)

>that Lane was telling the truth, and mentioned as
>an aside that this was "far from the case". Yet Ben decided to address a
>portion of what he Sandy said out of context as if it were Sandy`s
>*position* that Lane was telling the truth.

You aren't being very truthful here.

The point being addressed is what has been "explained" to me. Why not
simply quote it, that way you can help Sandy out. Then perhaps Sandy will
return the favor and tell you what the topic of chapter 5 is.

>Ben has certainly learned a
>trick or two from his mentor Lane.

Telling the truth is *certainly* a trick from your perspective.

>Below is the part where Sandy makes his
>position clear, but Ben inserted his comments as if this part had never
>been said.
>
> Sandy`s completed thought that Ben ignored...
>
> (though this is far from the
> case, of course, but for the sake of argument...) and the conclusion he
> draws, and attempts to make seem plausible, through the strategic
> omission of other facts, could be (and in fact is) a deliberate
> deception. Just as the Devil is said to quote scripture for his own
> purposes.

I find it amusing that non-religious people attempt to use religion in an
argument. There's a word for that in the English language...
unfortunately, this is a censored forum.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 7:44:10 PM10/1/12

to

John 8:44 calls the devil "a liar and the father of lies."
Mark Lane is the father of lies about the Warren Commission Report.

/sm

Bud

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 7:45:48 PM10/1/12

to

On Oct 1, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Top Comment: I notice that you didn't dare actually *POST* the post so
> that people could make up their own mind.
>
> Why is that, "Bud?"

It contained your usual "liar-liar" rhetoric, and I didn`t know how
that would be received here.

> In article <33fe1b02-241f-4a47-8787-fa6b68d4a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> Bud says...
>
>
>
> > As is becoming increasingly common, when Ben Holmes is getting trounced
> >in a discussion he has taken to misdirection and misrepresentation rather
> >than address the issues at hand.
>
> Says the person who *STILL* refuses to name the topic...

Refresh my memory, the topic has what to do with whether CE399 is
"undeformed" or not?

> >The latest example is this Ben posted
> >over at alt.conspiracy.jfk...
>
> Yep... I often post there... you see, I can't be censored over there. But
> it seems that you're willing to censor my post here, aren't you?

And brought over the part where you misrepresented Sandy, isn`t that
enough?

> > Sandy said...
>
> > This has been explained to you ad nauseam. Every detail that comes out
> > of Lane's mouth could be, by itself, true
>
> > Ben inserted...
>
> >You will be completely unable to document *ANYONE* else saying this.
> >It is indeed, the first admission by any LNT'er that Mark Lane was
> >telling the truth.
>
> > But notice that
>
> What people should notice is that you've snipped the post, so that people
> cannot see the context.
>
> I defy *YOU* to give the complete post...

I don`t think so. Why don`t you address the point instead of this
tiresome list of demands and dancing? Oh, thats right, I was 100%
correct, so you need something to misdirect towards.

> >Ben inserted before Sandy made it clear that he was only
> >speaking hypothetically
>
> Was Sandy speaking "hypothetically" that this has been explained to me "ad
> nauseam?"

I think he was referring to something I wrote in Mark Lane #91...

"You seem to lack the imagination necessary to cover all the bases of
deceit and dishonesty. Lane does not. It is possible to be dishonest by
leaving key information out. You can lie by saying all true things. I
remember a case where a drug lord was asked if he had a swiss bank
account. He replied he had one in the Cammin Islands and one in NY. When
it was discovered he did have a swiss bank account, the prosecution
charged him with perjury. He was acquitted, because the judge ruled they
should have asked a follow up question or asked the judge at the drug
trial to make him answer the question. The point is that the drug lord
didn`t lie, in fact everything he said was true, but he was being
deceitful."

I`m still cringing at "Cammin Islands".

I think Sandy was chaffing at having to make basically the same point I
made that didn`t sink into you the first time as if there was some hope
that at second time would do the trick. And as shown the second time only
served to confuse you rather than enlighten you.

> Can you *QUOTE* an example?
>
> Dare you try?

Just did. My point and Sandy`s point were similar, that Lane could be
deceitful even if nothing he said was factually incorrect. Consulting my
crystal ball tells me you won`t get this concept.

> This is the basic underlying problem with LNT'ers... ad hominem and
> smearing, along with running away from citation and evidence is all you
> have left.

I`ve been 100% accurate in my characterization of you in this affair.
You purposefully misrepresented Sandy`s position. If you can`t take the
heat here go back to hiding behind your killfilter at the nuthouse.

> Many, if not most LNT'ers no longer post in open forums for quite obvious
> reasons. (reasons that cannot be stated here - censorship, you know...)

Yah, you were able to misrepresent Sandy`s position just fine there.
But you can defend what you did here.

> >that Lane was telling the truth, and mentioned as
> >an aside that this was "far from the case". Yet Ben decided to address a
> >portion of what he Sandy said out of context as if it were Sandy`s
> >*position* that Lane was telling the truth.
>
> You aren't being very truthful here.

You`ve shown yourself to be a poor judge at truthfulness, you
actually think Lane is honest.

> The point being addressed is what has been "explained" to me. Why not
> simply quote it, that way you can help Sandy out.

Did that.

> Then perhaps Sandy will
> return the favor and tell you what the topic of chapter 5 is.

I don`t remember making any points that required that information.

> >Ben has certainly learned a
> >trick or two from his mentor Lane.
>
> Telling the truth is *certainly* a trick from your perspective.

You are doing a poor job at showing you didn`t misrepresent Sandy.

> >Below is the part where Sandy makes his
> >position clear, but Ben inserted his comments as if this part had never
> >been said.
>
> > Sandy`s completed thought that Ben ignored...
>
> > (though this is far from the
> > case, of course, but for the sake of argument...) and the conclusion he
> > draws, and attempts to make seem plausible, through the strategic
> > omission of other facts, could be (and in fact is) a deliberate
> > deception. Just as the Devil is said to quote scripture for his own
> > purposes.
>
> I find it amusing that non-religious people attempt to use religion in an
> argument. There's a word for that in the English language...
> unfortunately, this is a censored forum.

Is Sandy non-religious?

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 8:57:41 PM10/1/12

to

Yes, Bud, I am, but I don't that using figures of speech derived from or
drawing an analogy to a passage in Christian "scripture" (in which I am,
having been brought up in a religious family, quite well versed) smacks of
any hypocrisy at all. Nor is it "using religion," as such, to avail
oneself of the poetic richness to be found in those writings (along with
much foolishness).

/sm

John McAdams

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 9:00:45 PM10/1/12

to

On 1 Oct 2012 20:57:41 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>
>> Is Sandy non-religious?
>>
>
>Yes, Bud, I am, but I don't that using figures of speech derived from or
>drawing an analogy to a passage in Christian "scripture" (in which I am,
>having been brought up in a religious family, quite well versed) smacks of
>any hypocrisy at all.

It's probably not politically correct to do that, but you are right
about the richness of the language and the plentitude of fine figures
of speech in scripture.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:54:42 PM10/1/12

to

In fact many people recite famous sayings without realizing that the
came from the Bible. So, Mr. Moderator is it ok to ask if Sandy is an
atheist? Some rightwing nuts have been like Aym Rand and S.E. Cupp.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

John McAdams

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:56:51 PM10/1/12

to

On 1 Oct 2012 22:54:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/1/2012 9:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2012 20:57:41 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Is Sandy non-religious?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Bud, I am, but I don't that using figures of speech derived from or
>>> drawing an analogy to a passage in Christian "scripture" (in which I am,
>>> having been brought up in a religious family, quite well versed) smacks of
>>> any hypocrisy at all.
>>
>> It's probably not politically correct to do that, but you are right
>> about the richness of the language and the plentitude of fine figures
>> of speech in scripture.
>>
>

>In fact many people recite famous sayings without realizing that the
>came from the Bible. So, Mr. Moderator is it ok to ask if Sandy is an
>atheist? Some rightwing nuts have been like Aym Rand and S.E. Cupp.
>

Sandy is an atheist, and he certainly knows the sources of the stuff
he quotes.

Editors do tend to be reasonably literate, you know.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:59:32 PM10/1/12

to

Hmm, I don't think it's any more "politically incorrect" than saying "the
devil is in the details." That implies no belief in the physical existence
of the allegorical figure of evil. That's not from the Bible either, OK,
but many tropes that are have become part of our common speech.

What's "politically correct" (a term I never use without those quotemarks)
depends on whom you ask. There are religious folks on the left; I just
happen not to be one of them. But communist (atheist) philosopher Alain
Badiou repeatedly refers to Saint Paul and even wrote a book named for
him, subtitled "La Fondation de l'universalisme."

/sandy